I don't get it. If ISO deliberately requires two levels of approval, why should exercising the second level's voting authority be considered a betrayal of trust?
It sounds like there's sufficiently different genuine views here on whether it's right for the standard at this time, and this seems like the process working as designed.
The members of the broader group that cared strongly about C++ would have just been involved in the WG21 subgroup in the first place, the subgroup that approved it with a 2/3rds majority. So it almost certainly means that a broader group of ISO that normally don't care about what C++ does (and hence aren't involved in WG21) were influenced to vote in the direction the minority of the WG21 wanted.
I have no stake in this entire discussion or C++ and don't know if the premise of this argument is even true. Just curious: is that thinking unhinged?
The author even explicitly states that "errors in the process" are another potential reason for the NB's to vote against a proposal, so why focus solely on the "no new information" argument?
Also, keep in mind that the WG21 operates primarily by consensus[0], which is explicitly not a majority vote. The final vote for Contracts was 114 in favor, 12 opposed, 3 abstaining, which some consider "an unusual level of opposition" with "tangible debate"[1].
I assume the default is for people to trust that the domain experts in the various subcommittees did their work properly, so an in-favor vote would be more a "I trust the subcommittee / I don't care about this feature" than an explicit "I approve of this feature", with an opposing vote basically being "the subcommittee is making a grave error, this is obviously going to blow up in our faces".
Extend this to the NB level, and the disapproval is basically a vote of "Wait, do we really want to standardize something which is still facing very serious opposition?"
[0]: https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-4-wg21-practice...
[1]: https://componentsprogramming.com/cpp26-croydon-wg21-meeting...
That’s not very charitable, but honestly I’ve been trying for five minutes now to find or think up an alternative explanation. And coming up blank.
I think the author is trying to get at like, the actual discussion happens earlier / on the WG21 level, and the ISO vote is treated more of a rubberstamp. And that has changed in this instance.
Not really. The unprecedented part was how come contracts proponents decided to push a proposal against all feedback and concerns, knowing very well it was falling to build up any form of consensus.
Contracts proponents knew for years the featured proposal was opposed as it was riddled with fundamental technical flaws. The unprecedented part was the way they said "screw them" and pushed forth anyway, hoping the formality would build enough pressure to force anyone opposing the feature to succumb to the bureaucratic pressure and silence their concerns.
This contracts stunt reeks of corporate chicanery. I mean, what was the plan here? Ignore everyone, get the bureaucratic foot in the door, and then blackmail all dissenting voices of sabotaging the process if contracts proponents didn't had their way?
Contracts have been systematically pulled from the drafts since C++ 2020 as their proponents decided to ignore technical feedback and opted to go for political petty tactics much like those we see today.
Ask yourself this: how come the contracts proposal has been floating for so long, changed so little, have no reference implementations that address any remarks, and you still see the half baked proposal being floated?
And WG21 members did voted against it. Contract proponents repeatedly try to dismiss critics as having been ignored due to the nature of the democratic process, and now are complaining that they themselves see the same democratic process rejecting the proposal yet again, this time after the unprecedented push.
Not most recently, when it was first voted in, then repeatedly voted to remain in when the option to remove it was polled. The most recent consensus of WG21 is reflected in the current draft, established by multiple votes overwhelmingly in favor.
And sustained opposition does not necessarily mean lack of consensus either. WG21 heard the opposition and decided that constracts belong in the proposed draft despite of that opposition. It is very rare that a new feature does not get opposition, even a sustained one.
Now it is clear that there is no consensus between WG21 and the national bodies (although they overlap), but there is clear consensus within WG21.
> Consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.
So to me it is not at all clear that there was consensus within WG21.
John Spicer, the former chair of SG21 (the C++ Contracts Study Group), also seems to have doubts about that, see <https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2026/p4381r0...> -- which is quite self-critical.
Don't get me wrong, I am not taking sides here (I haven't even done any work in C++ in the last 10 years), but it does seem a bit more complex than how you paint it.
Not only was there no consensus, reports from the process described the behavior from contracts proponents in WG21 as political maneuvering and trying to ignore criticism by pretending that somehow consensus was not a goal and thus they could simply nominwlly reject and ignore any criticism.
There's a lot of personal attacks directed at Stroustrup but somehow it's left out of the story the fact that Microsoft apparently criticised the proposal as unimplementable. We're talking about feedback from the dominant compiler vendor.
It's implemented in GCC mainline, it's implemented on a branch of Clang. Considering MSVC: at this point in time I'm not convinced it it a question of implementability, but of will: https://cppstat.org/de/?tags=cpp26&type=lang
As for the second part of the definition, regarding the process, that all took place with a measurable outcome. Although "reconcile any conflicting arguments" might be interpreted as unanimity, but that's surely not the intent.
Is it though?
I mean, in what world does the concept of consensus means it's ok to ignore all opposing remakes, criticism, and objections?
You have a proposal for the C++ standard which representatives from companies such as Microsoft rejected after describing it as being unimplementable, and knowing this it's supposed to be fine to push forward with it?
What was the plan here? Are these guys so out of touch that they thought petty political chicanery would compensate all the technical problems?
I've been following contracts for a while and my interpretation is some people are refusing to accept that others disagree with them. These people are repeating the same arguments that have been addressed multiple times.
You can disagree, but I look at it as people refusing to work with others voting no.
Consensus is not the same as a majority vote. But it also doesn't mean that a small minority gets the right to block the feature forever.
That's my opinion as well. It's a smear campaign lashing back at people who dared to point out flaws.